In Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) v. Sheehan, 456 U.S. 728, 738, 102 S.Ct. 2118, 72 L.Ed.2d 520 (1982) the Court held AAFES regulations governing separation procedures for certain military post exchange employees did not constitute an express or implied-in-fact contract and thus did not authorize the award of money damages in the event of a Government breach. The Court held that "jurisdiction over respondent's complaint cannot be premised on the asserted violation of regulations that do not specifically authorize awards of money damages." Id. at 739, 102 S.Ct. 2118. Although the Court in Sheehan looked for a "specific authorization" of money damages, 456 U.S. at 739, 102 S.Ct. 2118, the Court clarified in United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472, 123 S.Ct. 1126, 155 L.Ed.2d 40 (2003) that "an explicit provision for money damages" is not needed in every case. 537 U.S. at 477, 123 S.Ct. 1126. Rather, "a fair inference will require an express provision, when the legal current is otherwise against the existence of a cognizable claim." Id.